Time to make Brown's school funding reforms work: Editorial

The new school funding formula proposed by Gov. Jerry Brown is a thoughtful approach, more logical and democratic than its predecessor, and a good start on reforming a broken system.

Naturally, the response from leaders of many cash-starved local school districts has been: What's in it for us?

Districts' concerns are not unreasonable. But as negotiations intensify in Sacramento, it seems clear that lawmakers can deal with them while preserving what's right with the plan, such as districts' new freedom to manage their own money. This makes the weeks before California's budget deadline on June 30 a pivotal time for K-12 education.

Basically, under the Brown funding approach known as the Local Control Funding Formula, school districts with more poor children, foster children and students learning English would get more state money to give those kids the education they need; and district leaders would have more leeway to decide how to spend the money.

In almost any final form, that approach would be better for everyone than the weird thatch of "categorical spending" revenue streams and rules that the state has now. The sticking point is that it might be even better for some districts than others.

Relatively affluent Southern California districts (such as those in Torrance, Palos Verdes and the Pasadena area) complain that they'd be "losers" under the plan while districts with more disadvantaged students (think of Los Angeles Unified, Long Beach and San Bernardino) would be "winners." Those words are overdramatic, but they make a point: As billions of dollars in new revenue is applied, much of it from taxes levied under Proposition 30, middle-class suburban districts would be slower than poor inner-city districts to recoup funds lost to the recession.

Most of the money for California schools comes from the state (while about one-quarter comes from local property taxes, one reason for inequities). The Brown plan would distribute it to districts in three tiers: a flat $6,816 per student; a 35 percent bonus for every child from a low-income family, foster child or English learner; and a "concentration grant" of up to 17.5 percent for districts where such kids make up most of the enrollment.

It's the concentration grant that goes too far in redistributing the school funding.

A proposal in the state Senate would scrap the concentration grant and distribute those funds in the other two phases. This wouldn't spoil the egalitarian idea, and it should be adopted.

Whatever specific funding method emerges, local district leaders will have to make it work. Huge L.A. Unified, itself a mix of poor and middle-class areas, would be wise to pursue school board member Tamar Galatzan's proposal to require funds received for disadvantaged kids to "follow the child" to his or her school.

Brown's reform proposal can help California to unlock the potential of more children. The right principles are there, but it will take smart work by lawmakers this month and by district leaders in the months ahead to make it work.